seth vidal wrote:
I believe this is more or less what I said at the last fedora board
meeting.
Anyone else there feel free to correct me if I'm misremembering it.
Paul Nasrat is willing to take over our fork of rpm and move forward. We
just have to make sure he can make it a priority.
Can we do that?
I don't ever recall Paul saying that (committing to
supporting/maintaining a forked rpm long-term). Maybe I just missed
that (or is senility sinking in already?)...
For the record, I'll be honest, I'm against forking (away from
rpm.org/jbj).
Sure, jbj is abrasive and in-your-face at times, but I see most of that
simply as his being protective of his rpm baby, much like you (Seth) are
of yum (except you're kinder/gentler about it! (: ). Now, I'm not privy
to the details of his "leaving" redhat, or the depth of his animosity
surrounding that, but based on my own observations so far, I'm not (yet,
at least) convinced that his attitude necessarily precludes working
*with* him.
And, from a *technical* point of view, I see no reason to fork either.
The only technical arguments I've heard so far are things like "feature
X is crazy!", but from my reading of:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/rpm-devel
Most/all of those "feature X's" are optional and/or can be disabled if
need-be.
-- Rex
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list
fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
